My favorite story...A few years ago I visited a prospective customer who
had lost their HP 3000 system manager about 6 months prior to my visit.
The 3000 only required part-time management, so they took their time
finding a replacement...as best I recall, it had gone about 6 months
without any systems management.  When I arrived there to see the "computer
room", nobody knew where it was!!  I'm dead serious, not a soul there (and
keep in mind it was a small company...maybe 20 employees) knew where their
HP 3000 was or what it did.  We finally found it in a closet, way in the
back, humming away as it had for the past 6 months that it had been an
orphan.   This kind of says it all, I think.

We laughed and then had a discussioin about how reliable the system is, and
about the importance of doing backups!!

John Lee
Vaske Computer Solutions

At 01:42 PM 12/3/01 -0500, Randy Keefer wrote:
>I also sent email to Carly and received responses from Mr. Stachnik.
>Needless to say, my emotions were a bit on the agitated side, so the tone
>is not always business-like, but I still think I got my point across.
>Sometimes you just have to vent your frustrations, ya know?
>
>Below are the emails in order.
>
>========================================================================
>>
>>
>> Original Message Follows:
>> -------------------------
>>
>>
>> This is a message to HP's CEO, Carly Fiorina, from a valued customer:
>> Randall Keefer.
>>
>> Customer's Phone:
>> Feedback Area:
>>  - Product experience
>>  - HP e3000
>> Message:
>> Ms. Fiorina,
>>
>>
>> Have you, or any of your staff ever even logged onto an e3000?  Have you
>> ever visited a business that runs an e3000?  If so, have you spoken to
>> the computer staff there, and the user base and asked them what they
>> thought of the machine?  I am confident that the answer to all of the
>> above questions is "NO".
>>
>> Just because it has been around for 30 years, does not mean it is old.
>> It means that it is trusted, tried, dependable, and efficient.
>>
>> I'd like to give you just one of many examples of this machine's value:
>> I recently left a company that has an e3000 with 200+ users on it.  It
>> is a series 967.  It is 11 years old and has crashed once in those 11
>> years (other than power failures before the UPS was installed).  In
>> 1994, the VP of the IS department decided to take one of the 16
>> applications running on the e3000 and convert it to client-server.  Six
>> years later and $8 million dollars, the application went live.  This
>> application served 20 people in the company.  There are 6 programmers, 4
>> technicians, and 2 DBAs taking care of this one application.  There are
>> still 15 mission critical applications running on the e3000 (along with
>> another 14 minor applications), serving 175 users.  The e3000 staff
>> consists of 1 system manager/DBA, 1 operator/technician, and two
>> programmers.  Just as a side not, the steal cabinets that were bought to
>> hold the 12 servers for the client-server application cost more than the
>> annual maintenance on the e3000/967.  Each of the 12 servers cost
>> $45,000.  The annual budget for the entire e3000 hardware/software/salary
>> is 15% of the client-server budget.  And that is for one application!
>>
>> So, yes, you are right to throw away such a piece of old just as the
>> e3000.  It just doesn't make any business sense!  Maybe HP's thinking will
>> work for Greyhound Bus Lines.  You need to let them know that they
>> should get rid of thier buses and buy 13 Geo Metros for each bus and
>> carry passengers 3 at a time in each Geo, and pay for the extra
>> drivers for each car.  After all, a Geo Metro costs alot less than a
>> bus.  They will just have more Metros on the road, and they will add up
>> to a bus.  Each Metro is so cost effective!
>>
>> Just as a last note, I wonder if you have ever read "The HP Way" by David
>> Packard? If not, may I suggest it as a necessary reading objective.
>>
>>
>=======================================================================
>Mr. Stachnik's response:
>=======================================================================
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "STACHNIK,GEORGE (HP-Cupertino,ex3)" <[log in to unmask]>
>To:
>Cc: "CHIARAMONTE, RICH" <[log in to unmask]>; "ENOS, GEORGE"
><[log in to unmask]>; "MARTINO, CHRISTINE" <[log in to unmask]>;
>"METCALF, TIM" <[log in to unmask]>; "PIERSON, KATHY"
><[log in to unmask]>; "PRATHER, WINSTON" <[log in to unmask]>; "RUDE,
>FRANCESCA" <[log in to unmask]>; "SIERRA, RALPH"
><[log in to unmask]>; "VANCE, JEFF" <[log in to unmask]>; "WRIGHT, LISA"
><[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: Your Email to Carly Fiorina
>
>
>> Dear Mr. Keefer,
>>
>> Thanks very much for your comments about HP's recent announcement
>concerning
>> the HP e3000.  Your email to Carly Fiorina was forwarded to me.  I work in
>> the HP e3000 division of the Hewlett-Packard company.  I'll try to address
>> some of your specific concerns.
>>
>> While I cannot comment on whether or not our CEO has ever "logged onto an
>HP
>> e3000", I can assure you that she has a very clear idea of what the HP
>e3000
>> business represents to HP, how long it has been around, and what a
>reliable
>> platform it is.  Because the HP e3000 has had such a long lifetime, some
>> customers (such as yourself) have questioned our decision to discontinue
>the
>> HP e3000 product line.  Some of speculated that it is because of the
>> proposed merger with Compaq, or because of the economic downturn that we
>are
>> experiencing.  Others have asked if the decision was made by Carly
>Fiorina,
>> or by the management of the HP e3000 division itself.
>>
>> In fact, HP made the decision to discontinue the HP e3000 because of
>simple
>> business reasons. It is against HP policy to comment on the sales of
>> individual product lines.  But in recent years, our customers have
>> demonstrated a clear preference for solutions based on low-cost,
>> high-volume, open platforms based on standards.  Although proprietary
>> operating systems have offered customers many key benefits, analysts have
>> been reporting that sales of proprietary systems have been falling across
>> the industry. At the same time, the open standard systems market has been
>> steadily growing.
>>
>> This has had a profound impact on HP's ability to keep MPE/iX current.
>> Technology is changing so quickly that the revenue generated by the HP
>e3000
>> will soon cease to justify the levels of investment required to keep it up
>> to date, or even to support it at the level HP e3000 customers have come
>to
>> expect.
>>
>> This has impacted HP's partners too. Applications, accessories,
>development
>> tools, support and other essential HP e3000 products come from an
>ecosystem
>> of HP partner companies. Like the rest of the industry, this ecosystem is
>> turning its attention toward low-cost high-volume, standards-based
>products,
>> and away from platforms such as the HP e3000, making it difficult for
>> customers to find products that can be used with an HP e3000.
>>
>> Today, the HP e3000 platform is still strong, and the relevant ecosystem
>is
>> still viable. However, we felt a responsibility to tell our customers that
>> we could see a time coming when we would no longer be able to sell and
>> support HP e3000 systems in the way our customers have come to expect.  In
>> the role of trusted advisor to our installed base, HP has decided to act
>> proactively, and advise customers to begin planning a migration to other
>HP
>> platforms, now, while there's time to formulate orderly transition plans
>> with as little impact as possible upon their businesses.
>>
>> Announcements such as this one are never easy to make.  But sometimes
>> business conditions make them necessary.  For almost 30 years, the HP
>e3000
>> has been one of the industry's most robust, reliable platforms.
>> Hewlett-Packard has continually evolved HP e3000 technology, enabling our
>> customers to keep pace with current technology, while simultaneously
>> providing backwards compatibility for the legacy technologies that
>customers
>> have used to run their businesses. There's no question that the HP e3000
>has
>> been one of the great success stories of the industry.
>>
>> We recognize that the HP e3000 is a valuable part of your business, and we
>> wish that it were possible for us to continue selling and supporting the
>HP
>> e3000 forever.  But ultimately, the HP e3000 business is exactly that - a
>> business.  And sometimes, we are all forced to make business decisions
>that
>> we may not like.
>>
>> Hewlett-Packard continues to be committed to its customers, and we really
>do
>> want to earn your continued business and partnership.  This is why will
>sell
>> and enhance the HP e3000 until 10/31/2003, and support it until
>12/31/2006.
>> It's why we're extending the support life of older HP e3000 platforms and
>> versions of MPE/iX.  It's why we have made conversion kits available for
>> converting HP e3000s to HP 9000s.  For a-class and n-class servers, these
>> kits are free.  It's also why HP and its partners have put together a
>> package of services to help customers make the transition to servers based
>> on HP-UX, Windows or Linux.
>>
>> I recognize that we are asking you to make a difficult transition.  But if
>> we continue to work together, I'm sure we can find a way to get through
>the
>> transition.  On behalf of the Hewlett-Packard Company, I'd like to thank
>you
>> for the support you have given HP and the HP e3000.  There is a great deal
>> more information about the announcement available on the web at
>> http://www.hp.com/products1/mpeixservers/future/index.html.  I hope we can
>> continue to work together in the future...
>>
>>
>>
>>   George C. Stachnik
>> HP - CSY M/S 47-UY
>> 19447 Pruneridge Ave
>> Cupertino, CA 95014 USA
>>
>> Email:[log in to unmask]
>> Phone:(408) 447-7456 (Vmail)
>> (408) 447-4278 (fax)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Randall:
>>
>> Thank you for taking the time to send HP your comments. They have been
>> forwarded to the appropriate people within Hewlett-Packard for their
>> information or action. Should more clarification or information be
>> needed, you may be contacted directly.
>>
>> Your input is important to us and very much appreciated.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> HP Executive Communications
>>
>>
>
>=========================================================================
>My final response:
>=========================================================================
>
>
>Mr. Stachnik,
>
>    I thank you for your response about the e3000.  While I understand the
>reasons that HP is ending the e3000 line, I do not agree with the factors
>causing the e3000's demise.  HP has spent about $3 marketing the e3000
>over the last 12 years or so.  During the 70's, the e3000 was a "hobby" for
>HP.  It was not part of the core business at the time, and was not
>considered important enough to try to market outside of HP's core customers
>(ie. those using HP instrumentation, measurement, and office machines).
>When HP decided to go to RISC architecture, they put a lot of money and
>effort into selling it.  They even tried to advertise to IBM customers.  It
>was almost a serious effort to try and sell the e3000 to new customers.  But
>then, HP decided that UNIX was the answer to all problems and ever since
>then, it has been virtually impossible to find an HP sales representative
>who even knows what an e3000 is or does.
>
>    I know this for a fact.  I was in several purchase agreement meetings
>during the early 90's at (For the HP List, I have removed the company
>names) WWWWWW, Inc., XXXXXX Company, YYYYYY, Inc, and ZZZZZZ.  I was a
>consultant working at these various companies between 1989
>and 1993.  At each of these meetings, HP, IBM, DEC, and a few others were to
>offer their solution proposals for various business applications (personnel,
>payroll, general administration/acctg, finance, warehouse/inventory control,
>etc.).  In each case, the HP3000 was not ever mentioned.  These are the
>applications that the e3000 was designed to perform.  The sales reps always
>touted the HP9000.  On a couple of occasions, I asked the sales reps about
>the e3000, and both of them gave me a puzzled look and started asking ME
>about the machine.  This was 1993, not 2003!  So tell me, what do you think
>was the cause of the e3000 losing sales?
>
>    I am beyond sorry to see this machine go.  It actually wouldn't bother
>me if I knew it was being replaced by a better solution.  But to be honest,
>there is no better solution for business applications than the e3000.  You
>don't need an army of people to maintain it.  It doesn't crash on a
>daily/weekly/monthly basis.  You can sleep well knowing that all of your
>data is free from corruption.
>
>    One last note, and then I will leave you alone:
>
>1)    When was the last time your "low-cost high-volume, standards-based
>product" crashed?  I bet you can remember the date because it was within the
>last month.  My e3000 hasn't gone down in 5 years.
>2)    When was the last time a customer who bought a "low-cost high-volume,
>standards-based product" have data loss or corruption due to system errors
>or simple power failures?  In the 30 year history of the e3000, of all the
>thousands of installed machines, there have been very few reported cases of
>data corruption due to operating system errors or power failures.
>3)    When you bought your "low-cost high-volume, standards-based product",
>did it come with system management tools, or did you have to purchase them
>separately?  They come included with the e3000
>4)    When you bought your "low-cost high-volume, standards-based product",
>did it come with a database management system, or did you have to purchase
>it separately?  DBMS is included with the e3000 (IMAGE or ALLBASE)
>5)    When you bought your "low-cost high-volume, standards-based product",
>did it come with an UPS, or did you have to purchase it separately?  The
>e3000 has included 30 minute battery backup since 1972.
>6)    How many technicians, DBAs, software engineers, programmers, and
>system administrators does it take to manage and operate your "low-cost
>high-volume, standards-based product"?  I can tell you that at XXXXXX
>Corp, I was the System Manager, Operator, DBA, Hardware Technician, Software
>Manager for three HP e3000's with over 600 users and I still spent more than
>half my days doing programming on a new corporate purchasing system with 10
>other programmers (whom I supervised).
>7)    I imagine you have a PC sitting on your desk that runs at 500Mhz or
>better, and has at least 128Mb of memory.  The 11 year old e3000 I described
>in my earlier email ran at 37Mhz and was able to handle over 200 users
>simultaneously accessing over 15Gb of data.  Now, your machine is at least
>10 times faster than my old e3000.  What do you think would happen if you
>tried to put 2000 users on your PC accessing the disc drives and doing their
>daily work?  Okay, how about 200 people?  How about 20?  Now, how does your
>"low-cost high-volume, standards-based product" sound now?  I wouldn't even
>want 2 people accessing the data on my PC.  You see, HP solved that problem
>30 years ago with excellent memory management.  Did you know that on the
>e3000, when you read a record from a database, 95% of the time the record
>you wanted is already in memory and the disc drive is not accessed at all?
>This is called "pre-fetching".  The e3000 knows what record you will want
>before you even ask for it.  This way, you are not waiting on your disc
>drive.  How many times have you sat at your "low-cost high-volume,
>standards-based product" and watched your disc drive light flicker away and
>you hear the 'Geiger-counter' sound as you wait for your data to be
>retrieved?  This does not happen on my old piece of junk.
>8)    How expensive is your "low-cost high-volume, standards-based product"
> now?  If only HP had as much confidence in HP's machine as its customers
>do!
>    Mr. Stachnik, I know that you did not kill the e3000.  HP did.  And they
>started the death spiral over 10 years ago when they started treating it
>like an ugly duckling.  I just wanted you and anyone else in HP to know that
>they have spent the last 30 years developing a fantastic machine and
>operating system.  This machine can still (pardon the expression) KICK ASS
>over the so-called "low-cost high-volume, standards-based product".  If HP
>has spent just a little time and effort on trying to sell the machine,
>instead of pushing it into the closet, we would not be having this
>discussion today.
>
>    Thank you for listening to the ramblings of an old e3000 fan.  By the
>way, I have been working on the e3000 since 1974.  I have extensive
>experience in all facets of its use, operation, and management.  I had hoped
>I would retire before the machine did, but it doesn't look like that will
>come about.  It's a shame.
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *